@aiyoyo wrote:In her original statements she placed herself at the scene, but after she got home to America she said on National TV she was not at the scene.Freedom and some coaching plus spin can change everything, as we all know.

The Mail reports that Knox and Sollecito met in New York just hours after the court ordered a retrial. Sollecito (from a wealthy family) has launched an online appeal for donations to pay his legal fees. His father says he is no longer in a position to fund the trial

Amanda Knox's secret meeting with ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito just hours after Italian judges ordered their re-trial over the death of Meredith Kercher

Former lovers pictured strolling in New York on Tuesday They hugged closely and kissed as they walked the streets Hours earlier court ordered retrial over murder of Meredith Kercher This has led to concerns that the couple should not be in contact Sollecito has launched $500,000 appeal for donations to fund retrialBy Nick Pisa and Anthony Bond

Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito hugged and kissed during a secret reunion in New York this week, it has emerged. The former lovers were pictured strolling in New York on Tuesday - just hours after Italian judges ordered them to return to court for a retrial for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher. The tryst has already led to concerns that the couple should not be in contact with each other now they have been recalled for a re-trial.

As reported by the Daily Mirror, the pair were pictured hugging closely, with Knox closing her eyes during the warm embrace as Sollecito kissed her cheek. The meeting has led to rumours that the pair have become romantically involved again. As the pair walked and chatted along a street in New York, Knox's mother walked behind. One onlooker, speaking to the Daily Mirror, said the pair looked like a couple who had been together for sometime. He said: 'You only have to look at him to see he still holds a huge torch for Amanda. 'They never once stopped chatting. It's astonishing they are allowed to even talk to each other, let along see one another, considering they are both suspects in a murder trial.'

Knox declined to comment on the reunion, with Sollecito admitting the pair have much to plan. Hours before their secret reunion on Tuesday, Italy's high court faulted the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito by the appeals court for the murder of Miss Kercher. The court ruled that the 21-year-old's death was a 'sex game gone wrong' and ordered the couple back for trial. This has resulted in Sollecito launching a desperate $500,000 online appeal for donations to fund his retrial.

The computer studies graduate said he was hard up and needed the cash for 'legal expenses' but added anything raised above the target he would 'donate to a research foundation'. In an appeal posted on his Facebook page Sollecito wrote: 'Well Guys, the problem for me now is pretty though. 'I'm deeply concerned not just for the issue I'm facing and most of you already know about, but also because I don't have resources anymore to fight this injustice. 'I badly need to be able to hire experts, when needed, or pay my attorney fees, documents fees, and so on when the new appeal will start. 'I hope to not bother you, but I need your collaboration to face this ordeal. Otherwise I don't want to forced to give up just for financial reason. 'I hope you will understand. I'm just asking if you, buddies, know how to build up a non-profit raising funds foundation. Big Hugs, Raffaele Sollecito.' Sollecito is thought to have been paid $1 million for American TV news interviews and an advance on his book Honour Bound My Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox, which was published last year.

However a sizeable proportion of that was swallowed up in legal fees to his team of lawyers including Italy's high flying Giulia Bongiorno who is said to have the highest fees in the country. On his Facebook page he invites potential donors to help him out via a page called Gofundme.com and on it he adds: 'This new Trial will take other 6 or 7 years more with witnesses, transfers, documents, experts and everything will be discussed all over again. 'I'll use and certify all the expenses paid with this funds. If in the future, I will not need this funds anymore for legal expenses, I'll donate the rest of the funds to a research foundation. Please help.'

His urologist father Francesco Sollecito said: 'This is an initiative of Raffaele's but it has my full support. I'm no longer in a position to fund a trial which could last another two years. 'Witnesses will have to be reheard and there is a good chance that new forensic tests will have to be carried out and as such experts and consultants will have to be paid. 'We are both very grateful for the high attention that has been paid to this case by his lawyers Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori.'

As of early today, 31 people had donated with the largest amount being $1,000 from an anonymous donor and the total standing at more than $4,000 - at that pace he will have made his target by the time the trial starts. The site was also subject to fierce criticism with several people posting comments expressing their outrage one woman Silvia Pavan wrote in Italian: 'Why don't you ask Amanda Knox for money ? Or better still why don't you kill yourself ??? Murderer.' Another called Lucia Rossi said: 'Scandalous. A killer asking for money...where have we ended up.'

@aiyoyo wrote:In her original statements she placed herself at the scene, but after she got home to America she said on National TV she was not at the scene.Freedom and some coaching plus spin can change everything, as we all know.

Yes, but be fair. She only changed her story once. Not three times !

Actually one is already ample when she could gave plenty details about her short return trip in the Apt, noticing blood in the bathroom, deposit in the cistern tank, etc etc...yet over TV she said an emphatic NO, she was never at the scene.

The contrast is so stark that one has no problem deducing one version is a blatant LIE.

DNA from Amanda Knox is found on a knife that Italian prosecutors believe was used to kill Meredith Kercher in Perugia in 2007, according to Italian media

it is however, found no evidence of homicide victim of the knife.In a new forensic report linked DNA material to Knox with " reasonable certainty ." The report is submitted to the appellate court in Florence where the case is ongoing.

According to Italian media can thus Knox linked to the murder of Kercher . But the coroner has found no trace of Kercher on the blade , and thus it is far from certain that the said knife is actually the murder weapon .

Nor is it found traces of Rudy Guede on the knife. He is convicted of murder and is serving a sentence of 16 years for the murder of the British student.

The knife was found in the kitchen of Knox's co-defendants and former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito , and she has used it several times for cooking .

Knox was acquitted in a lower court in 2011 and is located in United States. She is still charged in the ongoing appeal together with Sollecito .

Kercher was found murdered in the bedroom of the apartment she shared with Knox in the city of Perugia in 2007.

We have seen admissions or confessions by pronouns before. Here we have Amanda Knox confessing to being present at the murder of Meredith.

As the Amanda Knox case re-enters the news, here is her original handwritten statement to police upon being arrested. The analysis seeks to learn if Amanda Knox was part of the murder of her then roommate. The knowledge comes from Amanda Knox herself, who, if was at the crime scene during the murder, would give us verbal indicators. If she was not, and did not take part in the murder, she would tell us this, as well. Whether or not DNA was handled properly, or whether prosecutors are corrupt or not, her own words will tell us what we need to know.

Analysis Question: Is Amanda Knox guilty, in concert, of causing or participating in the death of her roommate?

"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" is a principle followed from antiquity where the words in which we choose are then discerned to be truthful or deceptive. The "heart" is the seat of the intellect and affections (emotions); what we think, and how we feel. Statement Analysis of statements is able to discern truth from deception, including false confessions made under coercion.

Pronouns are of particular value as they are learned in our earliest days of speech, with possessive pronouns often predating speech in young children, as they attempt to say "my" or "mine" with hand motions. Pronouns and articles are exempt from internal subjective dictionaries (as is objective time) and are reflex in our speech with our minds dictating to our tongues what words to say in less than a microsecond.

The Amanda Knox case is one that provokes emotional responses from both those who believe that she is guilty, and those who believe she is innocent. When people lie, they have a reason to lie. Here, she is brought in for a murder investigation.

Transcript of Amanda Knox's handwritten statement to police on the evening of November 6, the day she was arrested.

The statement is in italics, with statement analysis in bold type. Words that are underlined are done so for emphasis.

This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else.

The opening line appears deceptive.Dr. Paul Eckman teaches that testifying to memory failure is almost always deceptive. We don't know what drugs may have impacted her when this statement was made, but failure to remember is most always deceptive, especially in high stress situations. It should be noted that the word "this" indicates closeness, whereas the word "that" shows distance. On average, we see the word "that" used more frequently with memory failure.

People report what they can remember.

Note the inclusion of sensitive words, "very" strange, and "really" what happened. She notes that others are confused as she is. In a criminal investigation, innocent people (those who did not "do it" nor were involved in it) say so. They do so quickly, and without sensitivity indicators. Even in the most emotionally upsetting circumstances, a denial is found early and is comprised of:1. First Person singular "I" 2. Past tense verb 3. Event specific. 4. Without qualifiers or sensitivity indicators. We expect to hear this quickly in a statement. I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.

Passive language "I have been told" rather than who told her what specifically. But far more telling is the following words within her statement possibly an embedded admission: "I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened". This is not something an innocent person generally says, even in the form of a question, nor in a reflection of others' words. Someone not at the crime scene would not frame these words, nor place herself there.

Note that she Wants to confirm, which is different than confirming and is a weak assertion.

She wants to confirm something that to her, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible. This means that, to someone else, it would not be impossible; only to "her", and only on the condition of being asked a few days ago. This is a strong indication that Amanda Knox is lying.

It would also be impossible "a few days" ago, but as more information has come forward, it may be different now for her.

Is the something that she wants to confirm something that would be different to someone else (hence the use of "to me"). This is why extra words are essential in analysis. She is not being asked "a few days ago", she is being asked in the present. It appears that her perspective on the "something" she wants to confirm is different now than it was a few days ago.

Also note that "would be impossible" is different than "is impossible." The addition of "would be" changes her claim from something that already happened into a future event; making it weaker.

I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:

"I know" is strong and with the first person singular, it is something that she recognizes and asserts. Notice how "I know" is unlike her other statements. It is not "I believe" nor is it qualified with "I know that in my heart" or "I know that in my mind..." or any other additional words. That Raffaele has said that she was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder is something strong to Knox.

Next notice that it is only "in my mind" that there are things that may be elsewhere; not just in her mind. This is likely deceptive, as it is only in her mind; and not in reality. It is an attempt to avoid the stress of lying.

When people recount events from memory, they generally don't call it a "story", a word which conjures images of a made up tale.On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with meat the time. We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house. After the movie I received a message from Patrik [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.

Note that when the word "left" is used, it often indicates missing information. 70% of the missing information is due to time constraints, rushing, traffic, etc, with the other 30% being sensitive information.

Note whenever the number 3 enters a statement as it is known as the "liar's number" It should not be considered deceptive on its own, only noted in context. When someone wishes to be deceptive and chooses a number, it is often "3" unless the subject is asked how many drinks he or she had, and then the number is "two". The number 3 enters such as: "I was approached by 3 men" or "At 3 oclock on the third floor..." etc. It is not an indicator of deception on its own, for it is possible to be approached by 3 men on the third floor; only that it should be noted and later factored into the full analysis.

Note that the word "with" shows distance:"My wife and I went shopping.""I went shopping with my wife."These are two ways of saying almost the same thing. A follow up question to B will likely show why distance entered into the statement; such as "I didn't want to go shopping" etc. Here, the distance is between her and Raeffale: "Raeffale was with me" but then immediately changes it to:"we" which shows closeness, except that she has a need to emphasize the closeness by explanation: "We, Raffele and I stayed..." This need to emphasize, along with the needless repetition is an indicator that she is being deceptive.

Note that Patrik "told" me, rather than he "said" indicates firmness; It may be that she and Patrick argued, or that she wants to emphasize authority. But whatever the need, she uses "because" (which explains why something happened) making the statement itself, along with Patrik, sensitive.

Now I remember to have also replied with the message: "See you later. Have a good evening!" and this for me does not mean that I wanted to meet him immediately. In particular because I said: "Good evening!" What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember.

Note that she "now" remembers which, like the word "but" (which refutes what was previously stated) stands to change her account. Note that "goodbye", "see you later" etc, in homicide cases can indicate the time of death. Note the return of "I know" which is strong. What does she know? She knows that it does not match up with Raffaele's testimony. weak commitment to the text. If the subject does not own the text, neither can we.

I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believewe relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made loveto Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.Note the pronouns: "I told Raffaele" is strong language. This may indicate an argument. Note "after that" is a passage of time, or skipping over. There is missing information at this point of her statement. Note that "I believe" is weak; but when the weakness is added to: "we relaxed" (which, by itself is strong) is then added "together" (redundancy), we see deception. This needless emphasis is being made to place them together. Note "perhaps" is a qualifier and she is not committed to the statement. Note that she "perhaps" made love or perhaps read. This is more than just deceptive: it is an indication of someone else's presence:

Timing is an issue as she has skipped over time and withheld information (temporal lacunae). Why would she need to say that she made love to Raffaele? She already introduced him with "we". This is an indication of not only deception, but of the presence, within sexual activity, of more than just Amanda Knox and Raffaele. We do not know the time frame since she has skipped time. Note: Deceptive use of qualifiers. Again, see Dr. Eckman for this form of deception (memory). Note "perhaps" (qualifier) she made love "to" Raffaele. Sex is a theme in this case, and should be explored by investigators. First she says she may have made love TO Raffaele, then changes it to WITH him in the same sentence. The change in language would need to be explored.

However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time.

Note anything reported in the negative as sensitive. Note "I admit" show reluctance and resistance overcome. Note "with him" instead of "Raffaele and I smoked marijuana"; shows distanceNote that "these" things instead of "those" things. Note that the entry of water into a statement is often an indicator of sexual assault. Whether it is the washing of clothes, washing of hands, shower, bath, etc, Here we have the first indicator that her roommate died as part of a sexual homicide. Note that when she was with Raffaele, she had to mention that she had sex "with him" which is an indication that during sex, at least one other person was present. Now, with the entry of water into the statement is indicative that Amanda Knox was not simply present at the murder of Merideth, but that she was present for a sexual homicide. Note that to be vague; indicates an attempt at deception. She reports what may have happened, with choices such as reading or sex. This lack of commitment indicates deception on her part.

Deception, in order to be deception, must be willful. Amanda Knox places herself at the scene of a crime, and then gives indicators of a sexual homicide. In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.

The qualifiers resemble Casey Anthony. "In truth" means she speaks at times outside of truth. Note that " I do not remember" is an affirmation of what she does not know. This is a signal of deception. Note that she does remember, but only not "exactly"Note "we" took a shower. This is the 2nd indicator in a short statement where water is introduced. The element of water is often found in statements where a sexual assault or homicide has taken place.

It is significant that she tells us that Raffaele "cleaned" her. While speaking, even when attempting to be deceptive, what is in the heart slips out and she may have been thinking of washing off blood when she gave this statement. Those that wish to excuse her due to police misconduct, or mishandling of evidence must do so by ignoring not only the fact that she lied, but that she employed the language of a sexual homicide in doing so.

"I dropped off (the hitchhiker), stopped to get gas and wash up. After that, I drove down I-95 until..."

This was a statement where a hitchhiker was murdered. The timeframe where he washed up showed the time of death.

The shower details are also interesting as it is used to pass time and sexuality. Sex is a theme in her statement. Think how you might describe your night; even if you had a romantic shower, would you include it? If you felt that you needed to, would you give details about ears? Sex is in her mind while giving this statement and should alert investigators to any sexual motive in the crime. Making love "to" not "with" her boyfriend may show that Amanda Knox strongly wanted to please him. This may speak to motive and just how far she went.

One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock.

The lack of commitment to the events is noted but we also see:That which is in the negative: when someone tells us what they did not do, did not say, did not think, particularly when offered in an open sentence, it is a strong indicator of what they did do, did think, and did say. Here, she remembers that she did not look at the clock. This tells us:

She looked at the clock as time was significant. Note that this is something that "definitely" happened, yet she then says "I think" showing the obvious contradiction. Deception noted.

It is like the statement where the person says "and I saw no one run across my lawn" indicating that she saw someone run across her lawn. Always flag anything offered in the negative.

Also note that "because" is sensitive as it explains why something took place. In a statement, we normally get what happened and not why something happened, and just as being told what didn't happen, the "why, because, therefore, so, since, etc" is highly sensitive to the subject.

After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish. After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can't say the time).

Note "I noticed" is passive. Passive language seeks to conceal identity or responsibility. Note that the word "but" is used to refute what was just said. What does she refute? Noticing blood? It is the origin of the blood that she seeks to conceal, not the noticing. Note that "after dinner" chronologically is when she "noticed" blood, but then in her statement she says "after we ate" is repeated, going back to the event. Truthful accounts are in chronological order and can be repeated backwards and forwards. Any time someone is out of chronological order, it should be flagged for deception.Always note when someone says that they "can't" say something; it can indicate that if they did tell the information, it would harm them. Here, she "can't" tell the time; yet has other details down carefully.

Note also any inclusion of thought/emotion within an event. When someone is giving a verbal or written statement, it has been shown through careful study that in the recall process, emotions and thoughts are added later; not in the actual event itself.

A statement has 3 general portions:

an introduction

the event

post event action

It is in the 3rd section that emotions and thoughts are most likely to be included in an honest statement.

note also the "balance" of a statement is where the introduction of an honest statement is about 25% of the statement; the event is 50%, and the post event (like calling 911, etc) is 25%. Any deviation is noted but strong deviation is a solid test for deception. This is covered in other analysis)Note time: she "can't" tell us indicates that she is restricted by consequence, since we know that she looked at the clock.

The next thing I remember

temporal lacunae. This indicates withheld information during a critical time period; high sensitivity. The police interview would strongly emphasize here

was waking up

note verb tense instead of "I woke up"

the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house.

Blood on his hand; need to wash, clean up, and now plastic bag of clothing.

It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion.

note "very doubtful" qualifier; rather than making a full denial of her confession. This is because it is almost impossible to lie upon a lie. She can only doubt the lies she told earlier. Note "this" confession, rather than the expected "that" confession, had it been false.

"I'm doubtful" would show some weakness, but she adds even more with "very"

note the order: stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion. Stress is the first thing noted.

Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly.

Deception indicated.

This is an example of an extra word, ie, one in which the sentence works without, giving away information. She could have said "I didn't remember a fact" but instead says "I didn't remember a fact correctly" which would show deliberate deception. She cannot tell us what she didn' remember, only what she remembers, so this would place it in the negative, however, it wasn't remembered "correctly", indicating that she did remember it, just not "correctly"; and is another indication of deception. Here, Knox comes close to a confession, even in her denial. Note what she calls the information: "fact"

I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

Here sensitivity is shown. She wants to show why she understands the police hit her in the head. Please note that the sentence about being hit is deceptive: It is both passive ("I was hit in the head") and she added in the word "correctly" about a fact. Now she wants to make peace with the police over being hit. There is no agreement nor excuse when one is physically assaulted. This is yet another sign that she is deceptive.

Passivity is used when concealing is necessary. However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers.

Note the desire to separate herself from her mind. This is distancing language. Lying causes stress and here we see her desire to distance herself.

In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. She is lying.

She did not see Patrik do these things: he was not there, so it is in order to alleviate the stress of lying she adds "in my mind" she saw; but not with her eyes. This is an example of one not technically lying, but being deceptive.

Her choice of language, however, is interesting. It has to come from somewhere, as the brain knows, even when the tongue attempts deception. Here is the difference:

1. She saw Patrik, but only in her mind. 2. She does not say that when she saw herself cowering in the kitchen, covering her ears and hearing Meredith screaming that this was only in her mind. In her "head" she heard screaming.

What is the difference between "mind" and "head"?

In the "mind" is often the source of the imagination. In the "head" is often where someone speaks of hearing screams, with the need to cover ears, with "head" often associated with a guilty conscience.

But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.

She does not say that these things are unreal. She says that they only "seem" unreal, and only to her. She says that they are "like" a dream, rather than lie, outright, and say it was a dream.

Note that innocent people never accept nor excuse false work by Even within fabrication, each word spoken (or written) is vital and should be examined within the forensics of the investigation.We have already seen the lack of ownership and now she only reports seeing things in her mind. Yet, in spite of lying, there may be many important elements within her account.

But the truth is,

This introduction tells us that she has lied and now wants to be believed

I am unsure about the truth and here's why: Note that "truth" repeated, shows sensitivity and the analyst should be on alert that "truth" is a sensitive topic to the subject. 1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true.

Knox is acutely aware of the evidence, the crime scene, and that she has been blamed. Here, she also quotes her boyfriend, though we note the embedded still: "I have said things that I know are not true" appears supported by the analysis.

I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this.

Note that she makes a point to say that Raffaele was gentle "with me"; indicating that he was not gentle with someone esle.

What does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.

Amanda Knox may not know which inflicted blow killed Meredith.

Note that she does not say "Raffaele did not kill Meredith" but only that she does not "think" he did; leaving room for someone else to "think" otherwise. Note that while attempting to describe him as "caring and gentle" she uses the word "with" which shows distance, but then "this", showing closeness, to the things he was saying. Amanda Knox brings herself close to the detail; not further away as expected with innocent people. Note that "but" refutes what came before it. What came before it? "I don't think Raffaele killed Meredith"She recognizes that he had a part in the killing. Several indicators here, including qualifiers, adverbs,and the inclusion of "never" which here is offered (negation) which suggests that she did ask someone to lie for her. Note that she says "he walked into a situation" with "walk" a word indicating tension. Note that she says Raffaele is in need of a "way out" of the situation.

Honestly,

Repeated use of similar statements is from habitual liar (childhood) who wants to be believed

The language of deception and now she recognizes her own lying and wants to be believed, so she calls attention to it

I understand because this is a very scary situation. I also know that the police don't believe things of me that I know I can explain, such as:

1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom.

This tells us what Knox has been attempting to do: confuse the police. The police are not "confused"; they recognize the incongruity of Knox' statements. This is the "muddy the waters" technique employed by the guilty (Jose Baez comes to mind)

The truth is,

noted that she has a need to announce truth, which brings the rest of her statement into question. This is something deceptive people do when they want to be believed.

I wasn't sure what to think, but I definitely didn't think the worst, that someone was murdered.

Note twice she goes to the negative: not sure what to think and what she did not think, yet, she adds in the weakened "definitely" to what she didn't think. Note that the word, "someone" is gender free. This is an attempt to, perhaps, even lie to herself about the murder. She knows the gender of the victim.

I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it. I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.

Note that frequently in murders, guilty perpetrators will minimize what happened. Meredith did not get "hurt", she was murdered. Note "left quickly to take care of it" can be viewed with the "taking care" of the cleaning of the person and the apartment. Note the use of the word "perhaps" as not only used when a subject is deceptive and does not want to be pinned down in a statement, but here it is used repeatedly, showing sensitivity. Note that "because" is noted for sensitivity as it is outside the boundary of the general statement of "what happened" and shows a need to explain.

Liars have a difficult and stressful task of recalling what stories they have told and by adding "perhaps" and "maybe", they are able to later defend their inconsistency.First, she lists posible excuses for not calling police, excuses that didnt cause her to be alarmed. Then she goes on to say that "perhaps" she was in "shock", which means that she would have had knowledge of a traumatic event. In the next sentence, the "shock" turned to "worry" which caused her to seek advice.

2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating.

This is similar to an admission. It will be by pronoun that we see her confession.

And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house. Note again that "but" refutes what came first. She wants to "stand" behind the statements but...this is where it is difficult to lie about a lie. 3. I'm very confused at this time.Note that she is "very" confused, but only "at this time"

My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.

Pronouns don't lie: Confession or Admission by pronoun.

Pronouns are instinctive and are exempt from the principle of personal, subjective, internal dictionary (LSI). We learn pronouns from childhood with possessive pronouns pre-dating speech for some ("my" and "mine" via hand signals by toddlers)

We take possession of what we believe is ours; we do not take possession of what we do not want.

"I know" adds to the 3 pointed denial, making it unreliable and weak. Please note that this author believes that Amanda Knox may not have inflicted the final blow upon the victim, but was present for the homicide.

That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night.

She falsely accused him, willing for him to spend the rest of his life in prison.

The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:

These are questions she poses for herself, and may indicate she is speaking to herself1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?2. Why did I think of Patrik?

Couldn't she come up with someone else? Did she not realize that he would be able to have his alibi verified?3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?

Admission by pronoun that she was there. 4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.

Amanda Knox owns her involvement in Meredith's death with a word: MY. Someone who was not involved in Meredith's death would not state "my involvement", because they would not own it.

The same theme continues. I have highlighted the key words as the explanation is the same. Knox can't tell the truth, as it would cause her consequences; therefore, she seeks to confuse and leave open all sorts of possible explanations. She does not report what happens, but attempts to persuade. This is likely how she got herself out of trouble growing up, and is used to getting her way. The wording suggests her form of lying is lifelong, and not specific to this event.

Amanda Knox would not pass a polygraph. She fails the polygraphy of Statement Analysis and places herself at the scene of the murder and is deceptive throughout her account. She, by her own words, tells us that this is a sexual homicide, not just a homicide, and that she took part in it; present for the activity. She places herself by the crime scene and even though she attempts to deceive, her words give her away. She has nothing to be afraid of but lies, which would appear that she feared her lies were not bought by police.

It is likely that she, Amanda Knox, did not inflict the final death blow, and that she is not sure who's blow or cut was the final one that caused Meredith's death. This is why she said she did not "think" that Raffaele killed her, "but". This was likely a sexual assault that several took place in where they would each blame the other. She attempts to build an alibi for herself, indicating the need for alibi, and she attempts to explain away the washing away of evidence on her part.

Amanda Knox was part of a sexual homicide. This comes from her own words, and is not changed if prosecutors are corrupt or honorable, nor if evidence was dropped or mishandled. Amanda Knox, herself, has told us that she was part of a sexual homicide, was present, and that she knows hard evidence thus proves it.

If her initial confession is thrown out, this statement itself shows her involvement. It is difficult to imagine anyone trained in interviewing and interrogation claiming that this statement is truthful. Mishandling evidence or dropping something, or not wearing gloves may cause difficulties, but it does not mean that Amanda Knox didn't take part in the murder. Her own words show that she did.

____________________The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.

I love reading these analyses. Now this caught my eye and imo applies equally well to a boy who was the youngest in the family, very fond of doing tricks, mainly with cards.... GM.

The same theme continues. I have highlighted the key words as the explanation is the same. Knox can't tell the truth, as it would cause her consequences; therefore, she seeks to confuse and leave open all sorts of possible explanations. She does not report what happens, but attempts to persuade. This is likely how she got herself out of trouble growing up, and is used to getting her way. The wording suggests her form of lying is lifelong, and not specific to this event.

I'm with you all on the McCann case, but I really think you're barking up the wrong tree with Amanda Knox. Her confession was extracted under duress after a night of sleep deprivation. She was very young, naive and in a foreign country and didn't seem to understand the significance of her agreeing to the police demands. There was a public prosecutor saying totally absurd things about a satanic cult - things which should embarrass any of you who agree with his theories. They have already tried and convicted a petty thief who left evidence of his presence behind in the toilet, of all places. You really have to twist your brain into knots to figure out what Knox and her boyfriend would have to do with that character. I really think it's time to move on here.

@tigger wrote:I love reading these analyses. Now this caught my eye and imo applies equally well to a boy who was the youngest in the family, very fond of doing tricks, mainly with cards.... GM.

The same theme continues. I have highlighted the key words as the explanation is the same. Knox can't tell the truth, as it would cause her consequences; therefore, she seeks to confuse and leave open all sorts of possible explanations. She does not report what happens, but attempts to persuade. This is likely how she got herself out of trouble growing up, and is used to getting her way. The wording suggests her form of lying is lifelong, and not specific to this event.

Yes there are many similarities, a huge dose of xenophobia to start with.

____________________"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?" Gerry

@Varriott wrote:I'm with you all on the McCann case, but I really think you're barking up the wrong tree with Amanda Knox. Her confession was extracted under duress after a night of sleep deprivation. She was very young, naive and in a foreign country and didn't seem to understand the significance of her agreeing to the police demands. There was a public prosecutor saying totally absurd things about a satanic cult - things which should embarrass any of you who agree with his theories. They have already tried and convicted a petty thief who left evidence of his presence behind in the toilet, of all places. You really have to twist your brain into knots to figure out what Knox and her boyfriend would have to do with that character. I really think it's time to move on here.

Hi Varriot.

her confession was written freely using the process of free editing.If this was a coerced confession it would show in her statement and the analyst would spot it. remember we look for the truth as well as deception from the subject.

This statement was written on Nov 6th, the evening she was arrested so your claim she had a night of sleep deprivation is untrue.She was not forced to write this statement, she did it of her own free will and thus tells us what she was thinking.Like the spoken word, the written word is thought of a microsecond before being written down.

She said she would take a polygraph back in september this year to prove her innocence. She still hasn't taken one as she knows she would fail.

I was surprised that her publisher and supporters didn't demand she take a polygraph to prove her innocence, i know i would be demanding one or have a staement analyst interview her so i knew what the truth was.

Often defence attornies will conduct a private polygraph in their office to see if their client is being honest and based on the result will allow or refuse to let their client take one.it is also not unknown for suspects to poly shop, trying different polygraphers until they get one that passes them and will then proclaim this one as showing their innocence ( ignore the other dozen i took and failed)

This was something john and patsy ramsey did when their daughter was murdered. They polyshopped and then gagged every polygrapher including the one that passed them preventing anyone knowing what questions were asked and their response.

Statement analysts are way more reliable than a polygraph.You may be able to control your body responses. you may be able to pass a poly if the wrong questions are asked ( their personal dictionary may not be the same as ours, we see it as sexual molestation, they see it as hugging or cuddling, they minimise their crimes.)

Amanda knox told us she was present when Meredith was murdered, she tells us it was a sexual homicide.She may not have struck the fatal blow or believe she didn't, she was however present and that makes her as guilty as the rest.

BTW innocent people don't blame another innocent person for the crime, guilty people pretty much always do.This was why she got the extra year, she blamed her boss for the murder when he had a cast iron alibi.

I know she was being sued by the police for slander, for alleging they beat her.

Her attorney tried to shut her up with that allegation as they knew what would happen.She then admitted they hadn't beat her.Her parents were also sued by thesame cops for saying the same thing.

I am not sure what happened to that case or if it is still going through the courts.

At no point has knox ever made a strong first person singulat, past tense event specific denial, I did not kill meredith, and if she can't say it, i can't say it for her.

I do wonder though, if she is found guilty again will she have to pay back the money from the publishers since she is a convicted killer and not innocent as claimed?

I also wonder how she will pay back the money paid out by her family on lawyers and PR spin doctors?

It is still possible that sollecito could decide to do a deal, a reduced sentence for his testimony since the only thing that connects them is the murder of Meredith.He owes her nothing and vice versa.

____________________The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.

Hobs, it just doesn't pass the smell test for me. I don't think pronouns are enough for a murder conviction. The theory - that Knox and a new boyfriend joined someone they had just met to play dangerous sex games with a knife involving Knox's roommate. I don't think this is part of normal human behaviour. I just don't find it credible that this would ever happen. In the same way I don't think little girls get snatched from their beds in a holiday resort. In the absence of forensic evidence, I believe the smell test tells you something.

Hi Varriott, The same rules of statement analysis apply to knox as they do to the mccanns.The same principles that were applied to casey anthony, jodie arias, the ramseys,, the celis's the dipietros, debbie and jeremy irving, the lunsfords, the abrahams, mark redwine, charlie rogers, oj simpson and many more all of whom showed deception and involvement in the death of their child (even if the body has yet to be found after alleged abduction) or alleged assault in charlie rogers case or murder in oj's caseGranted in anthony's case the jury found her not guilty despite the overwhelming evidence, we can't force a jury to do the right thing and use common sense and logic and to actually review all the evidence and the same with oj simpson where race was used to divert attention from the actual charges.

If you accept that statement analysis is correct in all the above cases, it reveals deception from politicians ( anthony weiner, barack obama) it revealed deception about cheating from lance armstrong who finally admitted the truth, then you have to also accept that knox is being deceptive in her statements about her involvement in the trial and in the media.

If she was innocent as claimed, why did she blame her innocent boss and have him locked up for 2 weeks before his alibi showed he couldn't have done it.

People can and do commit the most horrendous of crimes, all of which are not part of normal human behavior.People can and do all sorts of things under the influence of drugs, from robbery to murder to slicing off their own face under the influence of PCP.

Sex games can go wrong resulting in injury or even death ( auto-erotic asphyxiation, bondage gone wrong, accidental death caused by falling off a bed and so on) Rape happens as we have seen in the news recently where a girl got drunk at a party and was raped by several men, it could be it started off as consensual and Meredith then decided she wanted out and they wanted her in thus it became rape. it could have been role playing that got out of hand even. Only those who were present knew exactly what went on and what happened and who did what.it is possible knox didn't do the fatal blow thus can say she didn't kill Meredith. However, she was present when it was struck and that makes her an accessory and just as culpable as if she had held the knife.

When you read her statement it is written as if she had taken some kind of hallucinagenic such as LSD or magic mushrooms rather than cannabis.This allows her to claim amnesia etc, the typical excuse from a guilty person, deception by ommission, temporal lacuna for example i did this and then suddenly i was doing that etc.

What is worth noting is that liars tend to go one of two ways, either being vagues about where they were and what they were doing and when or they go into too much detail over trivial things ( kate mccann gently removing the bead from Maddie's hair, casey anthong describing the nanny even to hair curlers) here we have the introduction of water in her statement which often indicates sexual behavior. Water crops not only crops up in relation to the spill in the kitchen, she also goes into detail about showering, even to saying how he cleaned out her ears.When you were to write about your day you aren't going to write i had a bath/ shower i made sure i cleaned my ears and between my toes, i shampooed twice and conditioned etc. You say i showered or bathed.

The fact she goes into such detail and given the mess of the crime scene i feel that they paid close attention to their cleaning to make sure they got every bit of blood washed off and anything else that could incriminate them.

Knox would fail a polygraph if the right questions were asked. Not did you murder Meredith as she may consider it wasn't murder but an accident and thus would pass when she said no.She would fail on were you present when Meredith was injured, were you present when she died etc.

A statement analyst is far more reliable than a polygraph, we know what questions to ask, we take the time to learn their internal dictionary, what their normal speech is like, their normal rhythm, we look for where it changes, pronouns and when they vanish, tenses and articles.

As an analyst, the mccanns show deception as do their friends, the same principles used to detect deception with them also show deception from knox.

____________________The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.

I'm looking forward to the truth about this pair of lying liars coming out in the courtroom in Florence, in the same way I hope the truth will be revealed and justice done in Portugal. It's an interesting coincidence that the two trials about these cases are running at the same time.

@Varriott wrote:I'm with you all on the McCann case, but I really think you're barking up the wrong tree with Amanda Knox. Her confession was extracted under duress after a night of sleep deprivation. She was very young, naive and in a foreign country and didn't seem to understand the significance of her agreeing to the police demands. There was a public prosecutor saying totally absurd things about a satanic cult - things which should embarrass any of you who agree with his theories. They have already tried and convicted a petty thief who left evidence of his presence behind in the toilet, of all places. You really have to twist your brain into knots to figure out what Knox and her boyfriend would have to do with that character. I really think it's time to move on here.

Hi Varriot.

her confession was written freely using the process of free editing.If this was a coerced confession it would show in her statement and the analyst would spot it. remember we look for the truth as well as deception from the subject.

This statement was written on Nov 6th, the evening she was arrested so your claim she had a night of sleep deprivation is untrue.She was not forced to write this statement, she did it of her own free will and thus tells us what she was thinking.Like the spoken word, the written word is thought of a microsecond before being written down.

She said she would take a polygraph back in september this year to prove her innocence. She still hasn't taken one as she knows she would fail.

I was surprised that her publisher and supporters didn't demand she take a polygraph to prove her innocence, i know i would be demanding one or have a staement analyst interview her so i knew what the truth was.

Often defence attornies will conduct a private polygraph in their office to see if their client is being honest and based on the result will allow or refuse to let their client take one.it is also not unknown for suspects to poly shop, trying different polygraphers until they get one that passes them and will then proclaim this one as showing their innocence ( ignore the other dozen i took and failed)

This was something john and patsy ramsey did when their daughter was murdered. They polyshopped and then gagged every polygrapher including the one that passed them preventing anyone knowing what questions were asked and their response.

Statement analysts are way more reliable than a polygraph.You may be able to control your body responses. you may be able to pass a poly if the wrong questions are asked ( their personal dictionary may not be the same as ours, we see it as sexual molestation, they see it as hugging or cuddling, they minimise their crimes.)

Amanda knox told us she was present when Meredith was murdered, she tells us it was a sexual homicide.She may not have struck the fatal blow or believe she didn't, she was however present and that makes her as guilty as the rest.

BTW innocent people don't blame another innocent person for the crime, guilty people pretty much always do.This was why she got the extra year, she blamed her boss for the murder when he had a cast iron alibi.

I know she was being sued by the police for slander, for alleging they beat her.

Her attorney tried to shut her up with that allegation as they knew what would happen.She then admitted they hadn't beat her.Her parents were also sued by thesame cops for saying the same thing.

I am not sure what happened to that case or if it is still going through the courts.

At no point has knox ever made a strong first person singulat, past tense event specific denial, I did not kill meredith, and if she can't say it, i can't say it for her.

I do wonder though, if she is found guilty again will she have to pay back the money from the publishers since she is a convicted killer and not innocent as claimed?

I also wonder how she will pay back the money paid out by her family on lawyers and PR spin doctors?

It is still possible that sollecito could decide to do a deal, a reduced sentence for his testimony since the only thing that connects them is the murder of Meredith.He owes her nothing and vice versa.

There are too many variables that undermine your hypothesis on this one.

Whatever manner the statement was taken in it was still written in the language of the writer and then 'agreed' with the person in the room.If she was interviewed the night she was interviewed on the evening she was arrested you do have tiredness creeping in as well as stress.Its also quite possible that she was off getting stoned during the day, considering she was stoned most other days. Cannabis affects cognitive functioning negatively in many ways and also stays on your system for quite a long period of time. It does affect the short term and long term memory significantly and smoked in whatever amounts she may have done could be 'hallucinegenic'. Despite whatever levels of fluency you have the language barrier as well as cultural differences and different colloqualisms. There is also the intermediary of the interpreter that was present. As I'm sure you are aware there are often large disparities between transcripts of interviews and the actual audios so unless you were analysing the audio, or her own written word your interpretations will be clouded. I also don't think the 'lie detector' is relevant as it is a flawed device and easy to manipulatethe readers output. I don't think 'DNA' being found on a knive is relevant also, considering that they were 'friends' and were often around each other.

On this occasion, I don't believe that she did do it. I just think that she is an idiot. With Amanda Knox I do think the perception of her and the way she presented herself was with relation to her levels of maturity. In american culture people of the level of affluence to travel abroad for study are often sheltered. There are regular news articles that come out of italy about widespread levels of corruption with government departments, including the police within Italy. I would not be suprirsed if some of the stories with relation to 'bribing' of witnesses are accurate.

@Varriott wrote:I'm with you all on the McCann case, but I really think you're barking up the wrong tree with Amanda Knox. Her confession was extracted under duress after a night of sleep deprivation. She was very young, naive and in a foreign country and didn't seem to understand the significance of her agreeing to the police demands. There was a public prosecutor saying totally absurd things about a satanic cult - things which should embarrass any of you who agree with his theories. They have already tried and convicted a petty thief who left evidence of his presence behind in the toilet, of all places. You really have to twist your brain into knots to figure out what Knox and her boyfriend would have to do with that character. I really think it's time to move on here.

Hi Varriot.

her confession was written freely using the process of free editing.If this was a coerced confession it would show in her statement and the analyst would spot it. remember we look for the truth as well as deception from the subject.

This statement was written on Nov 6th, the evening she was arrested so your claim she had a night of sleep deprivation is untrue.She was not forced to write this statement, she did it of her own free will and thus tells us what she was thinking.Like the spoken word, the written word is thought of a microsecond before being written down.

She said she would take a polygraph back in september this year to prove her innocence. She still hasn't taken one as she knows she would fail.

I was surprised that her publisher and supporters didn't demand she take a polygraph to prove her innocence, i know i would be demanding one or have a staement analyst interview her so i knew what the truth was.

Often defence attornies will conduct a private polygraph in their office to see if their client is being honest and based on the result will allow or refuse to let their client take one.it is also not unknown for suspects to poly shop, trying different polygraphers until they get one that passes them and will then proclaim this one as showing their innocence ( ignore the other dozen i took and failed)

This was something john and patsy ramsey did when their daughter was murdered. They polyshopped and then gagged every polygrapher including the one that passed them preventing anyone knowing what questions were asked and their response.

Statement analysts are way more reliable than a polygraph.You may be able to control your body responses. you may be able to pass a poly if the wrong questions are asked ( their personal dictionary may not be the same as ours, we see it as sexual molestation, they see it as hugging or cuddling, they minimise their crimes.)

Amanda knox told us she was present when Meredith was murdered, she tells us it was a sexual homicide.She may not have struck the fatal blow or believe she didn't, she was however present and that makes her as guilty as the rest.

BTW innocent people don't blame another innocent person for the crime, guilty people pretty much always do.This was why she got the extra year, she blamed her boss for the murder when he had a cast iron alibi.

I know she was being sued by the police for slander, for alleging they beat her.

Her attorney tried to shut her up with that allegation as they knew what would happen.She then admitted they hadn't beat her.Her parents were also sued by thesame cops for saying the same thing.

I am not sure what happened to that case or if it is still going through the courts.

At no point has knox ever made a strong first person singulat, past tense event specific denial, I did not kill meredith, and if she can't say it, i can't say it for her.

I do wonder though, if she is found guilty again will she have to pay back the money from the publishers since she is a convicted killer and not innocent as claimed?

I also wonder how she will pay back the money paid out by her family on lawyers and PR spin doctors?

It is still possible that sollecito could decide to do a deal, a reduced sentence for his testimony since the only thing that connects them is the murder of Meredith.He owes her nothing and vice versa.

There are too many variables that undermine your hypothesis on this one.

Whatever manner the statement was taken in it was still written in the language of the writer and then 'agreed' with the person in the room.If she was interviewed the night she was interviewed on the evening she was arrested you do have tiredness creeping in as well as stress.Its also quite possible that she was off getting stoned during the day, considering she was stoned most other days. Cannabis affects cognitive functioning negatively in many ways and also stays on your system for quite a long period of time. It does affect the short term and long term memory significantly and smoked in whatever amounts she may have done could be 'hallucinegenic'. Despite whatever levels of fluency you have the language barrier as well as cultural differences and different colloqualisms. There is also the intermediary of the interpreter that was present. As I'm sure you are aware there are often large disparities between transcripts of interviews and the actual audios so unless you were analysing the audio, or her own written word your interpretations will be clouded. I also don't think the 'lie detector' is relevant as it is a flawed device and easy to manipulatethe readers output. I don't think 'DNA' being found on a knive is relevant also, considering that they were 'friends' and were often around each other.

On this occasion, I don't believe that she did do it. I just think that she is an idiot. With Amanda Knox I do think the perception of her and the way she presented herself was with relation to her levels of maturity. In american culture people of the level of affluence to travel abroad for study are often sheltered. There are regular news articles that come out of italy about widespread levels of corruption with government departments, including the police within Italy. I would not be suprirsed if some of the stories with relation to 'bribing' of witnesses are accurate.

On this occasion, I think the right person is in jail.

The statement was written in english by knox using the process of free editing. There was no translation needed for us as we speak the same language. A translation would be needed for the Italian police files. her own behavior given what happened is also unexpected and a red flag. Her flatmates also noticed her behavior was off as well as her statements. If she was stoned that day the police would have noticed. Stop thinking of excuses for her words and behavior. Look only at the wirds she has written and spoken, At no point have either of them made a strong reliable denial first person singular I , past tense didn't/did not, event specific kill Meredith kercher. if they can't make the denial we can't do it for them. Even today in sollecito's speech he made no reliable denial, he didn't because he couldn't. Like guilty people the world over, they minimise, onit information and skip around the issue. One of the killer's is in jail, knox and sollecito should be. Knox told us she murdered Meredith Kercher and that it was a sexual homicide. She may not have inflicted the fatal wound, she was however presnt when it happened. Sollecito also claimed yesterday in court, he kissed, cuddled and behaved inappropriately because he didn't realise the seriousness of what happened? Excuse me? A girl gets raped and murdered in your girlfriends apartment and it's not serious??

____________________The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.

I've spent a lot of time with a female habitual liar who's also been protected in her youth. The pattern is the same, something happens and it isn't her fault. This is never denied outright, it is invariably something that 'happened' which she either cannot recall exactly, or the recall changes with every telling of the event.

Example, at her request lent her a new carpet, after use she threw it out although only days before I had reminded her I should like it back. It was worth about £ 200,- which she also knew. Silly example but

This story changed to: I did not know you wanted it backIt was dirty You never saidI'd forgotten because I had xyz on my mind

Or it goes to another event -distraction: I wasn't feeling wellThere was so much to do

Ad infinitum. Note that nothing is ever the fault of these people, it's all an act of God or fate or circumstances. They never 'own' the event. They ever say sorry, it was my fault, they are mere playthings of fate.

Knox is a typically spoiled Wasp imo. She was complicit in the murder because she had never had to 'own' an event before. If it had been a car accident and she'd driven under the influence of drugs, it would have been the same story, something happened to the steering, she wasn't driving, the person ran out into the road and so on. The only trouble these people have is working out which story will get them out of the situation.

An intelligent psychopath, such as the talented mr. Ripley, created by Patricia Highsmith is a good example of the thought processes of such people.

There is forensic evidence against Knox - for example her DNA was found on a knife in Sollecito's apartment, which also contained DNA of Meredith Kercher. The knife matched wounds inflicted on Meredith. She had never been to Sollecito's apartment, but he claimed Meredith's DNA got there when he pricked her hand when they were cooking a meal.

The prosecution didn't say it was a sex game gone wrong - they didn't suggest a motivation for the murder. It was lurid tabloid headlines who created those stories.

The statement Knox made to the police was a spontaneous statement (and false accusation towards Patrick Lumumba) she wrote day afterwards. Her first statement was disallowed because she didn't have a lawyer present.

Like the McCann case, a good number of commonly held beliefs about the Meredith Kercher murder are actually contradicted when the evidence and circumstances are examined. Like the McCann case, the misinformation is out there because of a massive PR campaign.

“I am not present in court because I am scared. I am scared that the vehemence of the prosecutor will move you and that the smoke they are using will blind you.“I am innocent. I did not kill, rape, steal, mastermind, instigate. I did not kill Meredith and I did not participate in her murder.”

Never once did the Prosecutor ever state she instigated it! She reveals a lot in her list of denials.Is revenge a motive because of her habit to steal allegedly?

In the email, Knox said investigators had lied to her and “extorted” a false confession.

A "false" confession she wrote in the privacy of her room, in solitude, on her own accord, which she later submitted.

“The prosecution has failed in its attempt to prove that I was on the murder scene and that I was the one to fatally stab her without leaving any DNA of mine on the scene. This is because it would have been impossible for me to erase all of my DNA evidence on the crime scene and leave that of another person. Either I was there or I wasn’t and all of the forensic evidence proves I was not.

According to Prosecution's report, she'd knowledge of crime scene (things that can only be known to killer/s on the scene) even prior to it becoming public knowledge.Her DNA mixed in the victim's blood was found in another flatmate's room, room where burglary scene was staged.

Knox's statement added: “I am not a psychopath. Nor any of the long list of insults which have been attributed to me during this trial.”The email was signed-off: "Yours faithfully, Amanda Marie Knox."A verdict in the trial is expected in mid-January.

How her inner disquiet voice has a mind of its own.She did herself further disservice by manifesting the monster that's devouring her from inside.You would think her expensive lawyer had advised her against the suicidal note (email), or possibly she plain refused to take heed.

The impending verdict is predictably not going to be in her favour IMO.

When asked (1) whether she killed MK and (2) whether she was there, she answered "No" but nodded her head.Synchronized phone switch off/on by her and her boyfriend/co-defendent Raffella (first and only time) on night of murder.